Prestigious Journals, Predatory Publishers and the Tall Poppy Syndrome in Medicine: A Brief Overview

2021 ◽  
pp. 87-91
Author(s):  
Douglas E. Garland
Keyword(s):  
Predatory Publishers

scholarly journals Predatory publishers: Implications for pharmacy practice and practitioners

2017 ◽  
Vol 150 (5) ◽  
pp. 274-275 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ross T. Tsuyuki ◽  
Yazid N. Al Hamarneh ◽  
Margaret Bermingham ◽  
Eric Duong ◽  
Hiroshi Okada ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pharmacy Practice ◽  
Predatory Publishers

scholarly journals Membership of the editorial boards of journals published by the predatory publisher OMICS: willing and unwilling participation

2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mike Downes
Keyword(s):  
Random Selection ◽  
Academic Careers ◽  
Editorial Boards ◽  
Predatory Publishers ◽  
Publishing Practices

Introduction. OMICS is the largest and most successful predatory publisher, with numerous subsidiaries. In 2019 it was convicted of unethical publishing practices. Method. A numerical tally of OMICS's editorial listings was compiled across 131 nations. Names and affiliations were recorded for seven nations. A sample was surveyed to estimate the proportions of those aware and unaware of their listing, and of OMICS’s conviction. Analysis. Excel enabled compilation, absolute and proportional tallies and random selection. Results. OMICS has twenty subsidiaries and 26,772 editor (and editorial board) listings, 11,361 from just seven nations. Proportional to population, Greeks were most frequently represented on OMICS's editorial boards, followed by Americans, Singaporeans and Italians. In absolute terms, Americans were the most numerous. The survey found that more than half of the respondents were either unaware of their listing or were unwilling to be listed, and 26% were unaware of OMICS’s conviction. Conclusion. OMICS's editorial boards do not function as they do for respectable publishers, hence the information published in OMICS journals is unreliable. Academic alliances with OMICS are potentially damaging to academic careers and institutional reputations. Universities should develop policies dealing with predatory publishers in general and OMICS in particular.

Prospective Observational Evaluation of Predatory Journals in Critical Care Pharmacy Practice: Defining Characteristics Associated With Receiving Unsolicited Invitations to Publish

2021 ◽  
pp. 089719002110360
Author(s):  
William J. Peppard ◽  
Sarah R. Peppard ◽  
Joel T. Feih ◽  
Andy K. Kim ◽  
Steve J. Obenberger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Critical Care ◽  
Graduate Training ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Pharmacy Practice ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Email Address ◽  
Post Graduate Training ◽  
Predatory Publishers ◽  
Predatory Journal

Open-access publishing promotes accessibility to scholarly research at no cost to the reader. The emergence of predatory publishers, which exploit the author-pay model by charging substantial publication fees for publication in journals with questionable publishing processes, is on the rise. Authors are solicited through aggressive marketing tactics, though who is targeted is not well described. The purpose of this study was to identify characteristics associated with critical care pharmacists that make them targets of unsolicited invitations to publish. A prospective, observational study of critical care pharmacists was performed. Participants archived emails received by their professional email that were unsolicited invitations to submit their original work for publication in a journal (unsolicited journals). Variables were evaluated to determine which were associated with unsolicited invitations; these were compared to legitimate journals, defined as all PubMed-indexed journals in which the participants were previously published. Twenty-three pharmacist participants were included, all of whom were residency and/or fellowship trained and practicing in an academic medical center. Participants had a median of 7 years of experience since their post-graduate training, 6 years since their last change in professional email address, and 2 years since their first PubMed-indexed publication. From these participants, 136 unsolicited and 59 legitimate journals were included. The average number of invitations increased 1.04 (95% CI, 1.02–1.05) times for every additional PubMed-indexed publication ( P < .001). Most unsolicited journals were considered predatory. Legitimate and unsolicited journals differed significantly. The number of previous PubMed-indexed publications strongly correlates with the likelihood of critical care pharmacists receiving unsolicited publication invitations, often from predatory journal.

scholarly journals Writing for Academic Journals in the Digital Era

RELC Journal ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 147-157 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Paltridge
Keyword(s):  
Digital Technologies ◽  
Academic Work ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
Plagiarism Detection ◽  
Academic Journals ◽  
Online Publishing ◽  
Management Tools ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Predatory Publishers ◽  
The Impact

The use of digital technologies has transformed the processes of writing for academic journals and the dissemination and preservation of academic work. It has also made the measurement of the impact of publications in academic journals easier and this information more accessible to authors. In this article I discuss some of the ways in which digital technologies have changed writing for academic journals as well as how digital technologies are being used in the submission and review of journal articles. This includes ways in which academic work can be stored and shared, the use of citation management tools, and the sharing of research materials once an article has been accepted for publication. I also give an overview of how digital technologies are being used in the review of journal articles including the use of plagiarism detection software. Issues in online publishing are outlined as is the development of open-access journals and the rise of predatory publishers. Social media and journal publishing and the use of multimodality in research article writing are also discussed.

Predatory publishing through McCornarck’s information manipulation theory

2020 ◽  
Vol 69 (4/5) ◽  
pp. 331-339 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harry Kipkemoi Bett
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Content Analysis ◽  
Academic Staff ◽  
Journal Article ◽  
Faculty Members ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Information Manipulation ◽  
Predatory Publishing ◽  
Predatory Publishers ◽  
Practical Implications

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyse how predatory journals use spam emails to manipulate potential authors. This has been done based on McCornack’s information manipulation theory (IMT). Generally, predatory publishing is on the increase globally but more pronounced in developing countries. Although it affects both young and seasoned scholars, inexperienced scholars and those ignorant on credible publishing are the most affected. Design/methodology/approach The current study through document analysis focuses on email invites from predatory journals sent to the author between June 2016 and December 2018 after publishing a peer-reviewed journal article. The resultant texts were analysed using a directed qualitative content analysis. Findings Findings indicate that the invites flouted all the four Gricean maxims (of quality, quantity, manner and relevance) as posited by IMT. This suggests that the spam mails sent to the author sought to manipulate potential authors to publish with predatory journals. Research limitations/implications This qualitative study focuses on email invites to the author which may not fully capture the manipulation by predatory journals. Practical implications It is important that scholars in developing contexts are aware of how predatory publishers seek to manipulate their victims. Universities and research institutions should be intentional in enlightening their academic staff on predatory journals and their characteristics. Similarly, universities should consider disincentivising their faculty members who publish in such platforms. Originality/value The originality in this study lies in its use of IMT to explain how predatory journals manipulate potentials authors.

Understanding Quality in Research: Avoiding Predatory Journals

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 661-664 ◽  
Author(s):  
Genae Strong
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Warning Signs ◽  
Control Measures ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Human Lactation ◽  
Predatory Publishing ◽  
Predatory Publishers ◽  
Global Threat ◽  
Publishing Practices

Peer-review publishing has long been the gold standard for disseminating research. The peer-review process holds researchers accountable for their work and conveys confidence that the article is of value to the reader. Predatory journals and publishing pose a global threat to the quality of scientific literature, accuracy of educational resources, and safety of patient care. Predatory publishing uses an exploitative business model, substandard quality control measures, and deceptive publishing practices. Given the proliferation of these journals and the extreme measures utilized to disguise substandard publishing practices, avoiding them can prove difficult. Understanding the nature of predatory publishing and how to recognize the warning signs provide helpful measures to authors, researchers, students, and readers. Additional resources known to help avoid predatory publishers have been discussed in addition to reviewing the Journal of Human Lactation guidelines for publishing.

scholarly journals How to Avoid Predatory Publishers

CSA News ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 63 (11) ◽  
pp. 18-19
Author(s):  
Tracy Hmielowski
Keyword(s):  
Predatory Publishers

scholarly journals Essential Information about Predatory Publishers and Journals

2016 ◽  
pp. 2-3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey Beall
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Essential Information ◽  
Academic Evaluation ◽  
Predatory Publishers ◽  
Number Of Publications

This article introduces, defines, and describes predatory publishers and journals and shows how they hurt science and victimize individual researchers. Academic evaluation that only counts the number of publications may not provide an accurate measure of scholarly achievement, as journals routinely accept papers with little or no peer review.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document